Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 3/24/24

Also, you will find information on each show's historical grosses, cumulative grosses and other statistics on how each show stacked up this week and in the past.

Click Here to Visit the Broadway Grosses...

Up for the week by attendance (% of capacity) was: CHICAGO (8.4%), THE WHO'S TOMMY (3.3%), SPAMALOT (3.1%), ALADDIN (2.1%), THE NOTEBOOK (1.5%), A BEAUTIFUL NOISE, THE NEIL DIAMOND MUSICAL (0.5%), SIX (0.1%),

Down for the week by attendance (% of capacity) was: KIMBERLY AKIMBO (-12.5%), WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (-7.7%), DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES (-4%), HARRY POTTER AND THE CURSED CHILD (-3.5%), BACK TO THE FUTURE: THE MUSICAL (-3.4%), SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET (-3.3%), & JULIET (-3.1%), MJ THE MUSICAL (-2.5%), HAMILTON (-1.7%), THE LION KING (-1.5%), MOULIN ROUGE! THE MUSICAL (-1.1%), WICKED (-0.9%), THE OUTSIDERS (-0.7%), DOUBT: A PARABLE (-0.6%), HADESTOWN (-0.4%), THE BOOK OF MORMON (-0.3%), AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (-0.2%),

Click Here to Visit the BroadwayWorld Grosses...

I kind of thought there’d be some rallying for Wine and Roses in its final weeks, but it is truly just limping to the end.

It just doesn’t seem possible to build an audience anymore, with these post-pandemic prices and general lack of interest. Today’s audiences are already built-in.

To be fair, based on what I've seen online, there have been a lot of people who went to Wine and Roses on the recommendation of reviews/word of mouth only to be disappointed by the score/story, and I think some of that word of mouth may have deterred others from going. Maybe it'll get a bit of an uptick in its last week, but I suppose we'll see.

I think Lempicka might be employing a strategy of just trying to get people in the door, since it was on TDF for so long, so I assume that (and other avenues of discount tickets) contributes to its low grosses this past week, so I'm curious to see whether it picks up steam.

I'm new to reading these charts so a few really basic questions:

First up is attendance... that's based on the number of seats in that particular theater, yes? So a play at a theater with 1200 seats at 91% attendance is ranked the same as a play at a theater with 800 seats as long the % of seats sold is the same. is that right?

Then revenues feels more straightforward because money is money. But say that a show is like Hamilton and the tickets are never discounted....they're always going to be higher than the show (in a theater with the same number of seats) that's selling their tickets at 30% off or 40% off, right?

and then what else do you guys look at it? I assume % up or down from previous week but some of that could be outside noise (a spring break week vs. a non-spring-break week....or a show that's just finished their opening week and is maybe seeing a slight dip from the previous week.)

(thanks for posting these numbers!)

Hope Lombardo said: "
First up is attendance...that's based on the number of seats in that particular theater, yes? So a play at atheater with 1200 seats at 91% attendance is ranked the same as a play at atheater with 800 seats as long the % of seats sold is the same. is that right?"


The "rankings" depend on which category you are sorting by. Notice the triangles at the top next to the labels - you can read the results by whichever category you want. But if you click on capacity, it's simply going to rank them by number, not taking house size into consideration.


"Then revenues feels more straightforward because money is money. But say that a show is like Hamilton and the tickets are never discounted....they're always going to be higher than the show (in a theater with the same number of seats) that's selling their tickets at 30% off or 40% off, right?"



Yes, but money isn't always money. (sort of) Some shows are more or less expensive to run - so a two hander play likely needs a lower gross than a 30-cast member musical. This is when being able to know (or wisely guess) a show's nut is important. (Basically a nut is the amount they must pull in a week to break even with that week's costs.)

"and then what else do you guys look at it? I assume % up or down from previous week but some of that could be outside noise (a spring break week vs. a non-spring-break week....or a show that's just finished their opening week and is maybe seeing a slight dip from the previous week.)"



The weekly ups and downs aren't as important (to me) until there is a trend. Or you see a big difference because a name left or started a run - but even that is kind of useless unless it continues.

I usually re sort (the default is alphabetical) by gross, then I'll look again after a per ticket average sort.

*super* helpful @dramamama...mulling this over and I might be back with more questions! :) thank you!

Hope Lombardo said: "I'm new to reading these charts so a few really basic questions:

First up is attendance...that's based on the number of seats in that particular theater, yes? So a play at atheater with 1200 seats at 91% attendance is ranked the same as a play at atheater with 800 seats as long the % of seats sold is the same. is that right?

Then revenues feels more straightforward because money is money. But say that a show is like Hamilton and the tickets are never discounted....they're always going to be higher than the show (in a theater with the same number of seats) that's selling their tickets at 30% off or 40% off, right?

and then what else do you guys look at it? I assume % up or down from previous week but some of that could be outside noise (a spring break week vs. a non-spring-break week....or a show that's just finished their opening week and is maybe seeing a slight dip from the previous week.)

(thanks for posting these numbers!)"

I think the singular most helpful metric is Average Ticket Price (I'll sort by that and also just have an eye on total gross), since it remains fairly objective to theater size and can also be indicative of how many people are getting comps/discounts (if you see a full house but a very low average ticket, the show probably isn't doing as well as you'd think). Of course, larger theaters with a low average ticket can still be fairly successful and making over $1 million a week, which is why I look at total gross as well, but I think it's a good metric for popularity/demand.

Also something that might not be apparent if it's your first time looking at the numbers, if there's a capacity above 100%, that's due to standing room (which usually means a show is very high in demand, though only some theaters offer it).

I'm happy Sweeney is still doing well even with Foster missing a show. (Tveit and de Waal were wonderful together!!)

Has a recent show ever limped along as badly as Wine and Roses? Even Bad Cinderella had an uptick before it closed. I didn't love it, but I had hoped it would end stronger than this.

Broadway Flash said: "Those who dislike days of wine and roses are the ones who laugh at every stupid bit in Spamalot. They want confetti."

Not true. I have not seen it -- zero interest -- but the people who I know who have seen it thought it was a total bore and they didn't even like the music a spec. One friend, who attends most shows every season wondered how the actors learned how to sign the songs, since they were so abysmal. I am not saying that tyer are abysmal, but to suggest that people who don't like Roses essentially deserve Spamalot is ridiculously obnoxious.

Mr. Wormwood said: "I feel like Tommy, Water For Elephants, The Notebook and The Outsiders are all sort of in this middle range that is acceptable for now. But Tony noms and word of mouth are going to matter big time for these shows I think to see where their trajectory goes."

I think Water for Elephants has the largest challenge to contend with as it has the largest cast and the most human elements with all of the circus work and quite a bit of technology. Having their current ATP under $100 is somewhat concerning. I also think that, of the four properties listed, it has the least immediate name recognition among ticket buyers - TOMMY covers those from the 70s/80s, THE OUTSIDERS overlaps with the 80s/90s, and THE NOTEBOOK has universal demographic crossover.

I certainly wasn’t bored at all during Wine and roses. There was at least three times I thought one of them was gonna die. The music is not Richard Rodgers or Jerry Herman music, so I can see people having a hard time with it, but it’s truly stunning in his jazz opera way. The more people listen to it, the more they enjoy it. I think it has a pretty good chance at winning score.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "TOMMY may have some of the bridge & tunnel steam that fueled JERSEY BOYS and BEAUTIFUL NOISE and BRONX TALE if they can offer an attractive enough range of prices. Or these sales could be frontloaded."

That was DEFINITELY the audience I saw the other night